December 31, 2010

Remembering the future?

Very lazy blogging this. I mean lazier than usual. I checked the tag for co-blogger, Gabriel Ash, and saw a post on Mondoweiss's take on Herzl. I went then to Mondoweiss where I saw a cross-post from Max Blumenthal's blog on how some Palestinian women were abused by Israelis as the former were visiting the holocaust circus, Yad Vashem.
This week, a group of elderly Palestinian women were escorted to the Yad Vashem Holocaust Martyrs’ and Heroes’ Remembrance musuem to learn about the Jewish genocide in Europe. At the entrance of the museum, they were surrounded by a group of Jewish Israeli youth who recognized them as Arabs. “Sharmouta!” the young Israelis shouted at them again and again, using the Arabic slang term for whores, or sluts. 
The Palestinians had been invited to attend a tour arranged by the Israeli Bereaved Families Forum, an organization founded by an Israeli whose son was killed in combat by Palestinians. They were joined by a group of Jewish Israeli women who, like them, had lost family members to violence related to the conflict. Presumably, both parties went on the tour in good faith, hoping to gain insight into the suffering of women on the other side of the conflict. 
Unfortunately, the Palestinian members (who unlike the Israelis live under occupation and almost certainly had to obtain special permits just to go to Yad Vashem) learned an unusual lesson of the Holocaust: A society that places the Holocaust at the center of its historical narrative — that stops traffic for two minutes each year on the national holiday known as Yom Ha’Shoah — could also raise up a generation of little fascists goose-stepping into the future full of irrational hatred.
Of course, it is not simply the placement of the holocaust "at the center of its historical narrative" that makes Israel as racist as it is.  The ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians began as soon as the Jewish National Fund began buying land from absentee landlords and the holocaust was not consciously placed "at the center of its historical narrative" until after the main bout of ethnic cleansing though the holocaust had happened.

No, Israel has always been a racist state and zionism has always been a racist project.   But why is Israel getting more explicitly racist now? What's all that about? I don't really know. I think appeasement has something to do with it but it doesn't explain everything. I'm going to wait until Gabriel comes out of his winter hibernation. He usually explains these things very well.

Oh, happy new year everyone!

For gays, women and Hizbullah

That headline is how a New York Times article describes the Lebanese daily paper, Al Akhbar:
the paper champions gay rights, feminism and other leftist causes, even as it wholeheartedly supports Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed Shiite movement. Al Akhbar’s access to Hezbollah allows it to scoop other papers on Lebanon’s biggest continuing story, but it also publishes muckraking exposés on the abuse of domestic workers, prison overcrowding and other delicate subjects. Add splashy full-page color photos and witty tabloid-style headlines, and you have an alluring product.
I'm jealous.

December 30, 2010

JSF censored in Spain

Apparently there is a net nanny that comes automatically with a lot of internet services in Spain.  It's called Canguro (ie Kangaroo) Net.  Well according to my contact, it prevents access to Jews sans frontieres and to Norman Finkelstein's website.  The person telling me about it told me that they had contacted the customer services and that Canguro Net was maintaining its position, ie, barring JSF and Finkelstein is legit.

I googled "Canguro net" and it seems to me that most of the sites that appeared were complaining of the intrusion into their free access and looking for ways to disable the service or perhaps I should say service denier.  In fact here's a video clip showing what you can do in Explorer 7 if you want rid of this nasty net nanny:

Looking at some of the other sites, a company called Telefonica seems to impose it on new users unless they specifically request that it be removed. See this British Expats site:

Im having problems accessing certain websites,as this canguro net restriction keeps popping up?

how do you bypass this? ive tryed contacting telefonica but couldnt find anyone that spoke english,as my spanish isnt good enough to sort this out.
The response was a little less than helpful:
unless you have kids, tell them to take it off. it costs money per month i assume ?
Nearly everything else is in Spanish but why oh why is a Spanish net nanny censoring Norm and me? I wonder if these Spanish kangaroos are related to Websense.

December 26, 2010

Ahava megillah?

I had assumed that this story was just a flash in the pan but it appears that far from condemning antisemitic abuse by staff at Ahava, there are zionists defending not just the accusation that Jews killed Jesus but adapting it specially for anti-zionist Jews. Here's a slice of Tony Greenstein's latest post that has Richard Millett, a zionist blogger and activist, defending the oldest of anti-Jewish slurs thus:
'Because even if she said what she is supposed to have said i doubt she meant it to have been an anti-Semitic comment. 

All she might have been suggesting is that Bruce, who is Jewish, is a traitor for trying to do to the Jewish state the same as some think the Jews did to another Jew.
For the whole megillah go here.

December 17, 2010

Anti-Jewish abuse from Ahava staff

Oi! Zionists in the UK are on the ropes again.  First, a picket is mounted against the Ahava store by Palestine solidarity activists protesting the sale of products made from Palestine resources, then the Zionist Federation (ZFUK) mounts a counter picket, then the neo-nazis of the EDL come to support zionism (as they do and always did), then ZFUK activist, Jonathan Hoffman gets photographed openly fraternising with an EDL activist, then he has to issue a grovelling apology for libelling the photographer, also called Hoffman, who snapped the rather compromising situation.  And now.... And now what?  And now an assistant at the Ahava store has called a Jewish Palestine solidarity activists a Christ-killer.

See this short clip from Tony Greenstein's blog:

I don't know if the Communalist Security Trust is on the case but according to Deborah Fink on the JPUK list they have been informed.

December 16, 2010

Zionism by firelight

I know I'm very late with this but I only read about the condition of Israel's firefighting services in The Week a few days ago.   You can only get it in hard copy magazine format but a bit of googling took me to an Independent report on the fire that killed over 40 people and had neighbouring states and even the Palestinian Authority scrambling their own firefighters to save Israeli lives after Israel pleaded for help.

From memory, the fire seems to shed some light on many aspects of the zionist project.  A fire that raged for the best part of a week was blamed on two Druze boys who, it is alleged, negligently disposed of smouldering charcoal in a forest.

Palestinian firefighters coming to receive a commendation for their help weren't allowed to cross a checkpoint.  Remember, it's Israel that has no partner for peace.

The ministry responsible for the fire service is controlled by Shas, the Mizrahi religious group in the Israeli parliament and government.  This is a token office because public safety is only an issue if Israel can use it as an excuse for killing natives and neighbours.
Much of the media and political criticism focused on Interior Minister Eli Yishai, leader of the ultra-orthodox party Shas, whose department is responsible for the fire service, which the fireman's association said has one fireman for every 7,000 people compared with one per 1,000 to 1,200 in most European countries.

Mr Yishai hastened over the weekend to defend himself by calling for a commission of enquiry, blaming his predecessors for serial neglect, and claiming that he had done "whatever we could" to increase the budget of the firefighting services. But media critics pointed to the combative right-wing minister's repeated and contrasting success in securing large funding increases for his own religious constituency in pre-budget discussions. Yaron Dekel, host of a popular radio talk show, echoed many commentators by declaring: "In a proper country, after such a failure, you simply go home."

There was little immediate sign that Mr Yishai would be forced to resign however, not least because of the pivotal role played by Shas in successive Israeli Cabinets, including Mr Netanyahu's, where the Interior Minister has been prominent in opposing any suggestion of a freeze on building Jewish settlements, especially in East Jerusalem.
So, where were we? Blaming Druze boys for the state's deficiencies, a token ministry for Mizrahim, natives barred from most of the country, potential partners for peace slapped in the face for their racial inferiority, money for settlements but not for safety, and anything else?  Well yes there is something else.  Don't the racist war criminals of the State of Israel keep telling us they are frightened of Iran and of other threats to their lives and even their existence?  How come they have so much fewer firefighters than European states?  Well, that's because they spend their money on other stuff  of course.  But if they truly feared an attack using long range missiles, weapons of mass destruction even, wouldn't they invest more in their civil and public safety systems?

This fire, as tragic as it has been, has shone a light on zionism, the racism and the lies.  So will it be a turning point?  Probably not but I do hope that whenever Netanyahu pops up on UK tv to talk about the "threat" from Iran or anywhere else, his interviewer asks him why Israel has such a small budget for public safety but a bottomless pit for construction of Jewish only settlements and for waging war on civilians?

December 14, 2010

Stuart Fretwell: an apology

The above name chap had a letter published in The Independent the other day that impressed me so much I reproduced it below. Not wishing to leave a post on a
I remarked that he was "obviously university educated". Well, apologies for that because said Stuart Fretwell has paid us a visit to say
Nope . . .Grammar School & Art College
Obviously a witty man (check out the letter) with a keen eye for bogus assumptions.

Never let it be said I won't correct and apologise for mistakes.

Clause 151

Another one of those infamous clauses tucked away in a large bill going through the UK parliament.  The bill is mostly about the bill, ie the police and its full title is the police and social responsibility bill but clause 151 is included so that Israeli war criminals can visit the UK without fear of arrest for war crimes.  Here's the Morning Star from a couple of days ago:
Clause 151 would give the Director of Public Prosecutions a veto over whether an arrest warrant could be issued for war crime suspects.
This would essentially allow the government of the day a political veto over what is a legal question.
War crimes are closely defined under international law and all legal administrations have a responsibility to apply the law strictly and impartially.
Yet Israel believes that different rules should apply to itself or that conduct which would be a war crime in any other circumstance should not be viewed as such when committed by the zionist state.
And the British political Establishment supports Tel Aviv on this issue, which is why David Cameron and Gordon Brown undertook to propose this measure after former Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Livni cancelled a visit to London to dodge a war crimes arrest warrant.
The Israelis were furious because, in common with the European Union and the US, they believe that war crimes are committed only by Africans or by countries at odds with the western allies.
Tel Aviv complained of being "singled out" for special treatment. The opposite is the case.
The demand to arrest Livni for the well-documented crimes carried out by Israeli forces in their merciless assault on Gaza was a bid to ensure that Israel is bound by the same international law as other states.
Yesterday The Guardian published a letter to show that justice still has support even in the UK parliament:
We are joining the chorus of voices against government proposals (contained in the police reform and social responsibility bill) to give the director of public prosecutions a power of veto over arrest warrants for war crimes suspects who are visiting the UK. These warrants are issued very rarely by extremely senior district judges in Westminster, and only in response to submissions from victims accompanied by substantial evidence against the suspect. Giving a power of veto to the DPP would risk: political interference by ministers in the arrest of war crimes suspects; delaying proceedings, allowing suspects to escape justice; and would constitute a gross interference with the rights of the victim and the responsibilities of the judiciary.
Ministers and diplomats are already protected by immunity when carrying out their public duties, but this change in the law would risk creating a culture of impunity in the minds of those politicians and military leaders who already treat international law with cavalier disregard. We call on parliamentarians in both houses and of all parties to support international law and reject these proposals.
Richard Burden MP 
Jeremy Corbyn MP  
Alex Cunningham MP
Mark Durkan MP
Jonathan Edwards MP
Clive Efford MP
Paul Flynn MP
Mike Hancock MP
Cathy Jamieson MP
Gerald Kaufman MP
Ian Lavery MP
Andy Love MP 
Caroline Lucas MP
Kerry McCarthy MP
John Mcdonnell MP
George Mudie MP
Ian Murray MP
Sandra Osborne MP
Yasmin Qureshi MP
Joan Ruddock MP
Bob Russell MP
Baroness Jenny Tonge
Mike Wood MP
Billy Hayes, CWU
Paul Kenny, GMB
Chris Kitchen, NUM
Kevin Courtney, NUT
Hugh Lanning, PCS
Bob Crow, RMT
Betty Hunter, Palestine Solidarity Campaign
John Austin
Victoria Brittain
Caryl Churchill
Jocelyn Hurndall
Dan Judelson
Bruce Kent
Ken Loach
Kika Markham
Prof Karma Nabulsi
David Polden
Prof Hilary Rose
Prof Steven Rose
Alexei Sayle
Clare Short
Keith Sonnet
Ahdaf Soueif
Dr Benjamin Zephaniah 
Revd Canon Garth Hewitt, Amos TrustAbe Hayeem, Architects and Planners for Justice in Palestine
Len Aldis, Britain-Vietnam Friendship Society
Chris Doyle, CAABU
Estella Schmid, Campaign Against Criminalising Communities (CAMPACC)
Kate Hudson, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND)
Ismail Patel, Friends of Al Aqsa
Brenda Heard, Friends of Lebanon, London
Liz Davies, Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers
Mary Nazzal-Batayneh, Human Rights Legal Aid Fund
Pat Price-Tomes, ICAHD UK
International Solidarity Movement (ISM) London
George Farebrother, Institute for Law Accountability and Peace
Diana Neslen, Jews for Justice for Palestinians
Martin Linton, Labour Friends of Palestine & the Middle East
John McHugo, Liberal Democrat Friends of Palestine
Daud Abdullah, Middle East Monitor (Memo)
Pat Gaffney, Pax Christi
Frank Barat, Russell Tribunal UK
Dr Alan Mackinnon, chair, Scottish CND
Hugh Humphries, Scottish Friends of Palestine
Michael Marten, Scottish Palestinian Forum
Lindsey German, Stop the War, Tahrir Swift, Women Solidarity for Independent and Unified Iraq
John Hilary, War on Want
Sarah Lasenby, NOW Network of Oxford Women for Justice and Peace
Marguerite Finn, Norwich Branch Of Women's International League Of Peace And Freedom (Wilpf)
Nigel Day, Oxford Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) ,
I wonder how LibDems are going to vote on this.

December 13, 2010

The Prince and the paupers

Letter to the Independent:
Last Thursday was a remarkable day. Prince Charles, the heir to the throne, was attacked in his car while travelling to a charity event with his wife.
The attackers were not terrorists but youngsters from a group of 100 or so protesters who had been prevented (by the police) from joining the demonstration against increased tuition fees which was taking place in Parliament Square. Police had sealed off the square.
Under no circumstances can such an attack on innocent motorists be condoned. The Prince and his wife were clearly badly shaken by it, and so would we all be if we found ourselves in that position. However, this unplanned meeting between a Prince and some relative “paupers” perfectly illustrates why people are so angry |about the attitude of this Conservative (in all but name) government.
Here is a man, born into great wealth and privilege, who received his own university education free of charge, as did his siblings and his two sons. On a day when youngsters who have none of his advantages were taking to the streets in protest at the restriction of the access to university education to only the rich and privileged (or to the poor, with the accompanying monstrous debt to repay over 30 years) – here was the epitome of privilege and power (personified in Prince Charles) making a stately progress to the theatre in an absurdly grand 1970s Rolls-Royce.
A political cartoonist could not have done better if they had been asked to come up with a single image to illustrate the yawning chasm of understanding and life-experiences between the “haves” and the “have nots” in this once great country.
My own daughter was looking forward to getting her £30 a week Educational Maintenance Award to continue in education for the next few years. It has summarily been removed – no discussion, no explanation. Though £30 per week was vitally needed and appreciated by poor students and their families, to David Cameron and his like it represents no more than the cost of a couple of sandwiches.
Stuart Fretwell
Portland, Dorset
Very clever. Obviously university educated.

BDS refuseniks?

Here's a BDS victory with Edinburgh City Council refusing to consider Veolia for its refuse collection or any other environmental services, apparently because of its involvement with the occupation forces in Palestine.

Here's Scottish Palestine Solidarity:
A pro-Palestinian pressure group claimed success last week after Edinburgh Council rejected an attempt by a controversial firm to take over a range of public services in the city.
The Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign (SPSC) had argued that Veolia should be excluded from Council contracts because of the company's involvement in Israel's Occupation of Palestine.
Veolia had been shortlisted to take over environmental services contracts, including refuse collection and street cleaning, but a Council report published Friday indicated that the firm is no longer being considered. This latest blow for Veolia comes on top of similar multi-billion pound losses around the world, and is likely to add to the pressure on the firm to cease providing waste and transport services to Israel's illegal settlements in Palestine, including the construction of a tramway that the United Nations Human Rights Council deems, "in clear violation of international law".  The line is set to link Israel with some of its illegal settlements.
Council leaders also heard from leading law firm, Hickman & Rose, who warned that employing the French multinational could expose the local authority to "legal action for failing to take on board their obligation to recognise and comply with their duties and responsibilities under the Geneva Conventions and international law."
Green Councilor Maggie Chapman, who had campaigned for Veolia's exclusion, was pleased the Council had moved in line with other local authorities such as Swansea and Dublin who had already chosen to distance themselves from the multinational. "It is not enough for us to use warm words in support of the Palestinian people; we have to act on our convictions. Veolia props up the illegal Occupation by Israel of the Palestinian Territories, and the Council should have no part in such despicable activities." 
The Labour group had also argued for a boycott of the company during the Council's August meeting. A motion proposed by Councilor Angela Blacklock stated, "Veolia provides services to illegal settlements in Occupied Palestinian land and is therefore complicit in grave breaches of international and human rights law committed by the state of Israel". 
Unison activist, Marlyn Tweedie, is campaigning against the Council's Alternative Business Model (ABM) plans to privatise public services generally, but said she was pleased about the rejection of Veolia's bid specifically. "It's bad enough that the Council intends to privatise essential public services, but it would have really rubbed salt in our wounds if Veolia had won the bid." 
SPSC Chair, Mick Napier, said the decision was "a victory for human rights". He continued, "We have a duty to stand with the Palestinians and against the Israeli Occupation. Any company that helps maintain that illegal Occupation should not be surprised when local authorities chose to avoid them." 
The LibDems and Scottish Nationalists control Edinburgh City Council so it's curious that it was oppositionists that seem to have carried the day for solidarity with the Palestinians and for BDS.   Does anyone know the break down of the actual vote?

December 12, 2010

Is Adidas doing a runner from Jerusalem?

Adidas was going to sponsor the Jerusalem marathon but they've panicked now they've realised that the council of the occupied city has routed the run through the bits of Jerusalem that even the so-called international community calls occupied territory.  Here's Ma'ariv or someone's translation of Ma'ariv:
Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat decides to hold the first Jerusalem International Marathon in March 2011. He gets Adidas to sponsor the event. An Israeli runner registers and then discovers that the route runs through some of the most egregious examples of discrimination and dispossession in East Jerusalem: Sheikh Jarrah, Issawiya, the Shufat Refugee Camp, Jabel Mukaber and Sur Baher (see map on right.)
He approaches the Meretz representatives on the Jerusalem city council and they, with international human rights organizations, approach Adidas. Adidas smells a possible consumer boycott and gets cold feet. The company demands “clarifications” from the Jerusalem municipality. What does that mean? Time (and persistence) will tell.
So what are the ifs? The council could re-route the run, Adidas could withdraw funding or the lobby could get involved and Adidas will still fund the run without it being re-routed. Watch this space or as someone said, "time (and persistence) will tell.

On a personal note, Adidas were always my fave runners but I can always go no logo.

Jewish Chronicle lies again and again

More evidence that zionists just can't hold their own in forensic situations comes in the form of a Press Complaints Commission ruling that the Jewish Chronicle misled its readers over a meeting on Palestine at SOAS late last year.  Here's the press release from Jews for Boycotting Israeli Goods (JBIG) and the British Committee for the Universities of Palestine (BRICUP).

A complaint to the Press Complaints Commission by campaigners for Palestinian rights has forced the Jewish Chronicle to modify an article alleging anti-Jewish racism during a public meeting at the School of Oriental and African Studies last December.

For almost a year, the JC’s website carried a story stating that a Jewish man was subjected to “overpowering racist jeering” when asking a question at the London meeting, called to consider the parallels between apartheid in South Africa in the past and in Israel now.

The story alleged that Jonathan Hoffman ‘was told he was “not welcome” after revealing his Jewish name.’

The JC story did not say that this was vehemently denied by many of those present, including many Jews, that the panel included veteran Jewish anti-racism campaigner Ronnie Kasrils, a former member of Nelson Mandela's ANC government, and that Hoffman, co-vice chair of the Zionist Federation, was well-known for disrupting meetings opposed to Israel’s illegal activities.

Mike Cushman, a Jewish member of the British Committee for the Universities of Palestine, was one of the organisers of the meeting. He told the commission that his words had been, inadvertently or maliciously, misheard and misinterpreted on the publicly available video recording.

 “No-one jeered at Hoffman for being Jewish,” Mr Cushman said. “It was his history of hostility to Palestinian human rights that made him unwelcome."

The Commission said the JC story had made “serious allegations.” It breached the Editor’s Code on accuracy by failing to take care "not to publish inaccurate or misleading information" and by failing to tell readers that its account was strongly contested (full PCC text attached).  

JC editor Stephen Pollard responded dismissively when asked last May by one of the sponsors of the meeting, Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi of Jews for Boycotting Israeli Goods, to retract the story.

“We drew his attention to the fact that the BBC Editorial Complaints Unit had acknowledged errors in a BBC Online story that was the source of the JC’s report, but he refused point blank to discuss it,” said Ms Wimborne-Idrissi.

In an email exchange in June Mr Pollard insisted the JC story was "entirely accurate" and wrote: "I do not propose to enter into a correspondence with you or your contemptible organization."

“Only after we involved the PCC did the paper admit to misleading its readers,” Ms Wimborne-Idrissi said.

She said it was disappointing that the PCC had fallen short of requiring the JC to admit that its story was plain wrong, not just “contested”.

But she said it was positive that the Commission had insisted on the statement which now follows the JC’s online story at
And here's an extract from the PCC ruling:
the Commission concluded on balance that the newspaper had not taken care as required under Clause 1 not to publish inaccurate or misleading information. It had not made clear to readers that its account – and the account of those quoted in the article – was contested, nor that there existed strongly competing alternative views, including the complainant’s. To that extent, the article may have significantly misled readers as to the underlying position. The result was a breach of the Code.
Not the greatest of victories though. I first blogged about this when the BBC ran the bogus allegation of antisemitism at the SOAS meeting.  Here's the BBC's response to the PCC ruling:

ECU Ruling: Jewish man jeered at SOAS university debate, News Online, 17 December 2009

Publication date: 7 May 2010
The item reported a claim that a Jewish contributor from the floor had been the subject of anti-Semitic abuse. News Online quickly acknowledged that this claim was contradicted by others present, and replaced the original report with a more accurate account of the situation within 24 hours. However, two people involved in the organisation of the debate complained that this action was insufficient.
Although the action taken by News Online would be sufficient to resolve a complaint in most circumstances, in this instance the original report had been reflected in other online items and in the press. In addition to replacing it with a more accurate account of the situation, it should have been made clear to visitors to the page that the original account had been misleading. Upheld
Further action
A note has been added to the revised article to make clear that the original version had been at fault in reporting the claim of anti-Semitic abuse uncritically. News Online staff have been reminded of the importance of adhering to the guidelines on handling corrections to online material.
And here's the Jewish Chronicle's response to the same thing:
The facts of this story are in dispute. Since it was published, the organisers of the meeting have been in touch to tell us that they absolutely deny that there was any “racist jeering”. In their view, the words reported were misheard. They say what was actually said was: “Do you really want to know?”, in response to Mr Hoffman’s question, “Why don’t you let me speak?”. They say that Mr Hoffman was unwelcome because of his views, not because of his Jewish name.
The BBC's response was to correct a report based on lies. The JC's was simply to repeat the lies. Still, at least they've been exposed.

December 10, 2010

EU threat to treat Israel like any other serial international law-breaker

Sheesh, this is a turn up for the books. Several former EU leaders have suggested that far from keep rewarding Israel for its persistent breaches of international law, the EU should impose sanctions instead, just like it would in the case of any other country in breach of international law. Here's the BBC website:
A group of 26 ex-EU leaders has urged the union to impose sanctions on Israel for continuing to build settlements on occupied Palestinian territory.

In a letter sent on Monday, they said Israel "like any other state" should be made to feel "the consequences" and pay a price for breaking international law.
The signatories include the former EU foreign affairs chief, Javier Solana.
But in a written response Mr Solana's successor, Catherine Ashton, said the bloc's approach would remain unchanged.
An Israeli foreign ministry official said the proposal represented "a giant leap of bad faith".
Israel complaining of bad faith. Anyone out there looking for a definition of chutzpah? Look no further.

Still this isn't quite as exciting as it might appear.  These people are ex-EU leaders.  Their careers are all sorted now so they can do what they didn't dare do when they were in office.  And according to EU Observer their plea is falling on deaf ears.  Also, this is on the BBC website.  I listen to Radio 4 every day and I haven't heard any of this on the radio and I am guessing it won't be on TV either.  Still it is another addition to the drip drip that is gradually turning the State of Israel into a pariah state so it is good news.

Where is Palestine's Gandhi? In an Israeli jail of course

From The Tablet magazine:
American Jews often ask where the Palestinian Gandhi is. What few realize is that if such a man exists, he’s probably sitting in an Israeli military prison.

Right now, there’s a small but significant nonviolent resistance movement in the West Bank. The important recent documentary Budrus tells the story of its beginning in 2003. That’s when Budrus community activist Ayed Morrar, with the help of his astonishingly intrepid 15-year-old daughter Iltezam, succeeded, through peaceful but resolute protest, in thwarting plans to build the wall on their village’s land. Their model—community-based, grassroots efforts to protect their property—spread through neighboring villages, including Bil’in.
Full article, by Michelle Goldberg.